Is monarchy the best model for the Middle East?

Could Mouthwash please define "patriarchy" and "tribalism" for the benefit of the audience?

Patriarchy may have been the wrong word. I just know that parents were very highly respected in Judaism, and the father had significance. People were known only by their father's names until the 18th century when (European Jews, at least) took surnames.

You know what I meant by tribalism. These terms are just blurring together.
 
I actually don't know what you mean by tribalism. You've been using "tribe" interchangeable with "clan", "community" and "family" throughout the entire thread. I'm genuinely unclear what you think the term describes.
 
I actually don't know what you mean by tribalism. You've been using "tribe" interchangeable with "clan", "community" and "family" throughout the entire thread. I'm genuinely unclear what you think the term describes.

I'm not really sure why the term is relevant, given that it's pretty clear what my critique is aimed at.
 
I define tribe as a political unit generally made up of interrelated clans because that is what people usually mean by tribe. It is also what makes accounts of the experience of early Muslims particularly gruesome- people were torturing and killing their relatives because they accepted Islam. And it does matter, because you are arguing clans in the modern Middle East make monarchies more stable while using tribalism as a way to defend it when they are not the same thing. It is like saying speed and velocity are the same thing. No they aren't.
 
I'm not really sure why the term is relevant, given that it's pretty clear what my critique is aimed at.
It isn't. You assert that Arabs (all of them, a vast and undifferentiated mass) are characterised by "clannishness" and "tribalism", but you avoid defining either "clan" or "tribe". The only thing we know for certain is (as Jackelgull points out) that you aren't using conventional definitions.
 
It's harmful to think of religions like Judaism and Christianity as being monoliths; you can't just say "according to Christianity [insert assertion]" unless it is a foundational Christian belief. You right now are taking a quote from a tribal code of ancient Palestinians, and acting as if it is equivalent to modern Rabbinic injunctions.

I'm taking a quote from Deuteronomy and acting like it's a quote from Deuteronomy. My concern isn't what people of today believe. That's not history. My concern is about the development of religion and society. The suggestion that Judaism and Christianity are tied together in a way that Islam isn't is what I reject. My claim is that the customs of Islam and Judaism parallel each other in a way that Christianity has rejected. Whether Judaism has borrowed from Christianity in the interim is ultimately less relevant - particularly when we're talking about Jewish groups who were not in Europe as part of the diaspora.

Certainly early Judaism was patriarchal, but it never permitted anything resembling wife-beating; polygamy is frowned upon even in the Torah, and the rights of wives, rather than their simple welfare, has always been mandated.

Of course, if we were to talk about the evolution of religion, it would be reasonable to acknowledge versions of Islam that have effectively made polygamy extremely difficult - certainly far more difficult than the exigencies allowed for in that article. Both ancient Jewish society and ancient Arab society were male-dominated societies. In those societies, male right to divorce (and it was always a male right to divorce) was detrimental to the livelihood of women. Islam actually restricts that right of divorce, making it more difficult. It also gives women the right to divorce. Christianity restricted the male right to divorce even farther, of course, barring divorce entirely. In my view, both religions took the same track to deal with the same social issue. Of course, both religions dealt with the social conditions that existed at the time. Polygamy was common in the Arab world, so the Qu'ran restricts but doesn't prohibit it. In the Roman Empire (particularly first century Palestine), polygamy wasn't an issue. Therefore, the issues are focused on ensuring the livelihood of women (protecting them from the "hard hearts" of men, as Jesus put it). The response was to ban divorce entirely.
 
It isn't. You assert that Arabs (all of them, a vast and undifferentiated mass) are characterised by "clannishness" and "tribalism", but you avoid defining either "clan" or "tribe". The only thing we know for certain is (as Jackelgull points out) that you aren't using conventional definitions.

That's not what I assert. "Arab" is a modern national term. There are parts of the Arab world which are much more modern socially and non-Arab regions where people are tribal. But it correlates well.

I'm taking a quote from Deuteronomy and acting like it's a quote from Deuteronomy.

That's not the impression I got.

Of course, if we were to talk about the evolution of religion, it would be reasonable to acknowledge versions of Islam that have effectively made polygamy extremely difficult - certainly far more difficult than the exigencies allowed for in that article. Both ancient Jewish society and ancient Arab society were male-dominated societies. In those societies, male right to divorce (and it was always a male right to divorce) was detrimental to the livelihood of women. Islam actually restricts that right of divorce, making it more difficult. It also gives women the right to divorce. Christianity restricted the male right to divorce even farther, of course, barring divorce entirely. In my view, both religions took the same track to deal with the same social issue. Of course, both religions dealt with the social conditions that existed at the time. Polygamy was common in the Arab world, so the Qu'ran restricts but doesn't prohibit it. In the Roman Empire (particularly first century Palestine), polygamy wasn't an issue. Therefore, the issues are focused on ensuring the livelihood of women (protecting them from the "hard hearts" of men, as Jesus put it). The response was to ban divorce entirely.

Sure, but I don't see how this eliminates the difference between Judaism and Islam in regards to the rights of women. Islam acts as though the beating of wives is a natural disciplinary action, much like spanking your child. The modern attempts to justify it by saying that it can "only be done in the spirit of reconciliation" solidifies my point.
 
"Arab" is a modern national term.

Well, there are Egyptian, Syrian, Lybian, Iraqi nations etc, all of which can be lumped together as being 'Arab'. That doesn't make Arab a national term though; it merely indicates Arabic is the dominant language in those countries. (Case in point: the United Arab Republic failed, because of national disagreements. I doubt if a United Arab Monarchy would have fared any better. Then there are the United Arab Emirates: while one might term emirs monarchs, the UAR can hardly be called a monarchy.)

And I'm sure someone already mentioned that several of these Arab countries had monarchies, which were toppled.
 
Well, there are Egyptian, Syrian, Lybian, Iraqi nations etc, all of which can be lumped together as being 'Arab'. That doesn't make Arab a national term though; it merely indicates Arabic is the dominant language in those countries.

You don't understand what nation means.

Then there are the United Arab Emirates: while one might term emirs monarchs, the UAR can hardly be called a monarchy.

Why not? It is ruled over by emirs. There must be some examples from Europe of kings in a confederacy.

And I'm sure someone already mentioned that several of these Arab countries had monarchies, which were toppled.

I'm not saying monarchs are at all immune to revolution. I'm just saying that the current Arab crisis of legitimacy doesn't seem to have impacted them greatly.
 
That's not what I assert. "Arab" is a modern national term. There are parts of the Arab world which are much more modern socially and non-Arab regions where people are tribal. But it correlates well.
Besides the point. Please attempt to define "clan" or "tribe". If you do not attempt to define "clan" or "tribe", we have to assume that you do not know how to define "clan" or "tribe", and all references made by you to "clans", "tribes" and variations thereof are spurious.
 
Besides the point. Please attempt to define "clan" or "tribe". If you do not attempt to define "clan" or "tribe", we have to assume that you do not know how to define "clan" or "tribe", and all references made by you to "clans", "tribes" and variations thereof are spurious.

Screw your obsessive-compulsive definitions.

Screw this thread.

I'm going to watch Netflix until my brains drizzle out my ears.

Moderator Action: This is trolling and inappropriate.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Screw your obsessive-compulsive definitions.

Screw this thread.

I'm going to watch Netflix until my brains drizzle out my ears.
Wow. I guess TF should have been more annoying, since I managed to get you to block me pages ago, and he's taken until now.

Moderator Action: This is trolling. You are not allowed to discuss who is on your ignore list.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I think it's entirely fair for a person to ask you to define terms, when you are not using those terms in a standard manner. If I repeatedly referred to cats as 'non-bipedal monkeys,' one would ask me to define the term, as I was not using the standard definition. But, by all means, rebel against Big Dictionary.
 
You don't understand what nation means.

I think you haven't really been reading what I said.

Why not? It is ruled over by emirs. There must be some examples from Europe of kings in a confederacy.

Not really. And even if there were kings in a confederacy, that would still be a confederacy, not a monarchy.

I'm not saying monarchs are at all immune to revolution. I'm just saying that the current Arab crisis of legitimacy doesn't seem to have impacted them greatly.

Possibly because there aren't that many around? Most, if not all, Arab countries that have experienced a crisis recently were (and are) republics. It seems to me it's not monarchy that is an issue, but rather oligarchic regimes that do not really represent the people they are supposed to represent. But that apart, I don't think Iraq for instance would really be better off if it still had a monarch.
 
Is Assad's Syria considered a monarchy for the purpose of this thread?
 
Is Assad's Syria considered a monarchy for the purpose of this thread?

To put in Europa Universalis IV terms, it is a 'Dutch Republic'. It could well become a catchphrase for other Pseudo-republics like Azerbaijan and North Korea, similar to 'Dutch F***' and 'Dutch bargain'. However, we were the positive exception to the rule, having royalty without a monarchy.
 
Great scot, Ilham Aliyev, Kim Jung-Woon and Bashar Al-Assad are actually figureheads. And kings, apparently!
 
Top Bottom